The Court stayed proceedings in favour of a contractual expert determination process under GC21 General Conditions, holding that the applicant had not discharged the heavy onus of demonstrating that the agreed process was inappropriate for the dispute. The absence of formal discovery and cross-examination rights in the expert determination procedure did not render it unfair or inadequate where the procedure provided for exchange of submissions, document production on request by the expert, and a conference mechanism, and where the proposed expert was a retired Supreme Court judge with relevant expertise. The breadth of the contractual definition of 'Claim' — encompassing claims in contract, tort, equity and statute — was an important factor supporting the conclusion that the parties intended all disputes to be resolved through expert determination.
The full text is available to signed-in members.